Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Order in the matter of Minhas Steels Limited

Securities And Exchange Board Of India18 March 2016

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a listed company fails to obtain SCORES authentication as directed by SEBI's circular, despite a public notice warning of enforcement action, and fails to redress investor complaints pending against it, SEBI may restrain it from accessing the securities market and from buying, selling or dealing in securities under section 11B of the SEBI Act, read with sections 11 and 19, until both defaults are cured. An obligation to redress investor grievances arises under section 11 of the SEBI Act in addition to obligations under the Companies Act, and a listed company's persistent failure to redress such grievances, despite repeated advice from SEBI, is a ground for directions under section 11B because it adversely affects investor confidence in the securities market. Where a noticee neither replies to a show cause notice nor appears on the hearing dates fixed after adequate opportunities, and the notices have been served on its registered office address, the adjudicating authority may decide the matter on the material available on record.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

WTM/RKA/EFD/ 35/2016 BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ORDER UNDER SECTION 11B OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 In respect of Minhas Steels Limited 1. Minhas Steels Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Minhas' or ‘the company’) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at B-602, Steel Chamber Tower, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai – 410 208. The shares of the company are listed on Ahmedabad Stock Exchange Limited. 2. SEBI vide its circular no. CIR/OIAE/1/2012 dated August 13, 2012 directed all companies whose securities are listed on stock exchanges to obtain SCORES authentication by September 14, 2012. However, since certain companies including Minhas did not obtain SCORES authentication within the time period specified in the aforementioned circular, a public notice was issued on January 13, 2013, advising inter alia the companies to obtain SCORES authentication within seven days from the date of the advertisement, failing which SEBI would be constrained to initiate appropriate enforcement actions. However, the company still failed to obtain SCORES authentication.

It was also observed that five investor complaints were pending against the company. SEBI vide its letter dated February 15, 2013 once again advised the company to obtain SCORES authentication and to redress the investor complaints pending against it. 3. Since the company did not obtain SCORES authentication and failed to redress the investor grievances, SEBI issued Show Cause Notices (SCN) dated March 28, 2013 to the company, calling upon it to show cause as to why suitable directions including direction to restrain it from accessing the securities market for a specified period should not be passed under section 11B of the SEBI Act. However, the SCN returned undelivered from the registered office address of the company. Subsequently, the SCN was served upon the company on its registered office address by way of affixture. However, the company did not submit its reply to the SCN. 4. Opportunities of personal hearing were granted to the company on December 15, 2015 and January 28, 2016 and notices to that effect were served on the company by way of affixture on its registered office address.

However, the company chose not to appear for the personal hearing on the scheduled dates. I note that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the company and it is not keen to avail the same. I note that the company has not even filed any written reply/submission to the SCN. In view of these In the matter of Minhas Steels Limited facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record. 5. I note that the company has not obtained SCORES authentication, as required under SEBI circular dated August 13, 2012, till date. I further note from the SCN that there were five investor complaints pending against the company for redressal. 6. I note that the investor complaints are pending unresolved since the year 2000. In addition to the obligations under the provisions of Companies Act, the company is also under an obligation to redress all investor complaints in terms of the advice/directions of SEBI, in view of the provisions of section 11 of the SEBI Act. However, the company has not shown any tenacity in resolving the investor grievances and in spite of repeated advice of SEBI, the said investor grievances are pending till date.

7. Failure to redress investor grievances, by a listed company adversely affects the confidence of investors in the securities market. In view of the foregoing, I am of the view that it is a fit case to issue appropriate directions under section 11B of the SEBI Act against the company as contemplated in the show cause notice issued to it. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 19 of the SEBI Act read with sections 11 and 11B thereof, hereby restrain and prohibit Minhas Steels Limited from accessing the securities market and from buying, selling or dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, in whatsoever manner, till it obtains SCORES authentication in terms of the SEBI circular dated August 13, 2012 and resolves all the investor grievances pending against it. The aforesaid direction is without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the company and its directors in accordance with law. 8. This Order shall come into force with immediate effect. A copy of this Order shall also be served upon the depositories and stock exchanges for necessary action.

Sd/-

Date: March 18th, 2016 RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Place: Mumbai WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free